UMECUnited Mining Exploration Commission: A group of friends playing JumpGate-- "a MMORPG that launched smoothly, breaks from fantasy character setting, emphasizes PvP, and is the first persistent world space simulator that nobody talks about." ~Scorch

CHANGE OF OPINION
Well gents... I've had a serious change of attitude regarding pirates. They're a total menace to the game.

I guess I had a "bad night". I had my first hard-core pirate encounter. Had an individual charge me a mil to use a producer. Came back later in a fighter to "return the favor". Almost killed him, but he ran for his life and docked. Set up a camp on him, but he never left, but later... a Pay or Die pilot did leave. Me and a few other anti-pirates killed him. The thing was he was civ at the time and I got a home bounty. On the way back to work it off I had to fight off others from his squad killing one and then killing the original pilot again, finally being taken down. Now I'm stuck on a station surrounded by pirates who won't let me leave and am unable to buy anything because my faction is neg 15. All because I decided not to negotiate with terrorists... Enough is enough... I REALLY understand why people quit now. I just had the most exhillerating time ever on this game and in the same night a feeling of complete hopelessness. It's pretty bad when there are huge pirate squads that go unchecked and can get away with bullying people out of the game. I think I'll be the next one to leave. It was fun, but there are some real jerks in this game. I have to deal with 'em all day in Real Life... I shouldn't have to put up with them when I want to play a game.

Now then, i think everyone understands the basic problem regardless of the argument said n00b should have known about the guts of pvp/bounties. (please don't dismiss the above post by calling the pilot Don Quixote; nor think i'm going to support long rants of complex pvp changes/additions.)

HYPOTHESIS
First of all ND needs to illuminate the rules of pvp/bounties by updating the Flight Academy on JOSSH to be understandable. Since a snowball would stand a better chance in hell than that wish i think posting a synopsis, history and guts of bounties/pvp are in order. (along with a suggestion to alleviate the hopelessness of PLAYERS who are more unlucky than Bayonette - He could have quite easily have gotten a pr of -100 if he'd successfully defended himself against one or two pirates)
my hypothesis, in a nutshell, is thus: The way the bounty rules exist without any self-defense clause creates a sense that the latter isn't important for JG. (My assumption being that the opposite is true, yet counter-intuitive.) Since nature abhors a vacuum, it's been filling JG up with "honorable" sayings such as, "kick em when they're down" and other lovely concepts like "all civrippers are n00b hating griefers"/"kill em all and let god sort em'"...thus attracting unwary carebears who expect a pkswitch to be coded and the griefers that prey on such naivette...if this state of affairs continues it WILL eventually lead to the carebear switch. (regardless of past retractions)See here for discussion about what people think about this
i'll post my suggestion much later on. It's extremely simple, though arming n00bs with information about the basics is most important. therefore, some info first. (this is a game. like 99% of the games out there, this one has rules...)

PVP RULES 101

Bounties are dependent on your current ship/gear equipped, your level and also modified by what faction/level the other pilots are (they'll see different bounties) -- not even sure if or how they "stack", but i do know one can have a temp&perm bounty at same time.

me-777 wrote:

the moment someone gets a perm-bounty (the one he’s shooting dies) he doesn’t loose the temp-bounty, that only is cleared upon dock.

Temporary bounties are for when you shoot an unbountied civilian in regulated space...ALL factions can see them (this temp bounty is removed upon docking at any station)

Permanent bounties are for when you RIP an unbountied civilian in regulated space...ONLY that faction for which you have negative PR sees your perm.bounty (this bounty doesn't disappear upon dock or death...only by removing your negative pr completely are you free and clear)

this is most important: when you shoot an unbountied civ in reg space you first gain a temp bounty, irrespective of perm.bounty coding.

Gaining a perm. bounty instantly guarrantees you a minimum of -25Political Rating; A negPR status puts you in HonorGuard registry mode and you can't remove it while perm.bountied(negPR); perm.bounty(negPR) also prevents you from trading/purchasing any gear on any player faction station you have -pr with. (not sure about POS; neutral stations [including aman/hyp] are free to trade/buy); finally, perm.bounty(negPR) zeroes your insurance. (you get zip back after death for your gear/cargo)

ripping yet more unbountied civs in reg space lowers your political rating even further to a maximum of -100.
i won't be talking about the need to adjust this. don't htink i ever will, though my suggestion will alleviate certain applications of this

negative political rating that is below -15 decays at a rate of +1pr/hour active status (includes camping while docked)...since all missions give 3 PR it's a matter of 5 missions for that faction. (there's also the little known fact that combat missions don't need to be completed by docking at your destination)
i won't be talking about the need to adjust the -15pr ceiling. don't think i ever will, though my suggestion will alleviate certain applications of this

There's also an XP penalty if you gain yet another unbountied civrip in reg space with -50 PR (the calculation for that is instant and if you drop 2 levels below a ship requirement you'll be dumped from said ship upon death...the XP drop is relative to the level difference and scaled to hit you harder if you gank a low level on an absolute scale; though shooting someone near or above your level won't cause you any XP hits)
i won't be talking about the need to prevent xp hits for lvl26+ victims. don't think i ever will, though my suggestion will alleviate certain applications of this

oh, BTW, if you dock at a station you're less than -40 PR with you'll have your armor stripped to 0 and any ammo gun bins will be removed.

Wyx wrote:

Neg PR stacking, if you have good pol and you're ripping over lvl 26 then you get -15 for the 1st hit and probably about -40 for the second, it's varies as far as I can see probably depending on the exact level of the pilot. The second rip is basically going to put you at the stage where it's hard to dock with that faction basically, unless you have already worked off a portion of the 1st one.

Your armor gets stripped only if your PR is less than -40. A perm faction bounty shows to only members of that faction in all space and does not go away until you bring your PR past 0.

Although it's annoying, negative sol PR isn't too hard to work off. The quickest way is to run trannies between SC and SDS, or if you're looking for some action, wake to cornea. If you are in too slow a ship/too disliked by sols, you can always take combat missions and hit outer third: it's relatively fast and gives major experience on the side.

Armed with this information i do believe most n00bs like Bayonette will understand how best to deal with "pirate scum" who know only full well the ignorance they're exploiting.

HISTORY
Now. for anyone who wasn't a diehard betatester, that "temp/perm" bounty ruleset has been around, unchanged, since they were first coded...Right! Now, onto the history lesson on the other rules:
Beta6: You could run rampant with "zero" pvp rules (temp/perm bounties were it)
Early beta6 they decided to make Political Ratings restrict your purchase power and applied penalties for ripping an unbountied pilot (notice no registry was in place yet) if you had negPR it would "decay" to 0pr...1 point/hour (hasn't changed alot since then, only recently was the decay limit coded)
Back around beta6 in late Jan2001, NetDevil coded the Registry. Before that it was civilians and regulated space everywhere...This registry has changed very little. (The only changes were the recent "only HG can flip colored beeks" and "registry switch only at home stations"...plus the "autoHG for negPR")
at the start of the stress test (beta7) netdevil coded in nonpvper protection: XP hits; and for the pvpers: unreg space
Everything after that was a gradual stalemate until the recent Insurance Hits and NoTrading at negPR stations (plus the autoHG tag for negPR) And the negPR decay limit to -15

ISSUES/MAIN PROBLEMS
Okay, enough with the clinical history lessen, let's deal with the past prejudice that been evolving from the combination of pvp rules coded and the one rule that hasn't been coded: The ability to carry a perm.bounty(negPR). In order to state my case, I'll be spending some time explaining how the past and present pvp rules prejudice each and everyone of us into thinking all pvp rules (including registry and bounties) are strictly to cut down griefer activity, and into marginalizing "true pvp" into strict adherents of "the rules" - marginalizing them so badly that the conventional wisdom of "carrying a bounty" has become rather bigoted: "kill em all and let god sort em out" (that's not very charitable. All pilots, even bountied ones are TRI pilots; If they're not, they should have been banned by the GMs for griefer activity)

First off, there's the prejudice that the Registry (ie. "civ tags") system was coded because nonpvpers asked for this particular fix to pvp problems.

patently untrue. though assuming the opposite is slightly offbase. read on

Secondly, there's the prejudice that the Registry system (ie. HG rules) was coded because pvpers asked for this particular fix to the pvp problems arising around the bounty system and the PolRat pvp rules. (the fact that being the first to fire the shot in a war = bounty meant you had reequipping problems if you ripped said target)

they didn't ASK for this. it was simply assumed to be a "good" idea by developers with zero understanding and zero experience with actual non-simulator warfare...There was hardly anyone arguing they wanted to fight "nice wars" or duel outside the sim without someone taking a penalty for firing the first shot.

What am i yabbering about? Look, you fight, you get a bounty. simple right? That's the way it mostly worked until Llama whiners started yelling about the game of "tag" they were playing. But, ND missed the underlying problem and focused on adding HG tags instead of self-defense issues.
The registry (ie. honorguard) was coded by developers who had a misconception about the kind of mindset pvpers have - They were thinking in terms of false carebear perceptions of the "correct etiquette in honorable duelling" (as though the majority of people liked fighting "nice wars" and honorable duels...and looked down on 'nonconsentual pvp' as dishonorable griefing)

Baadf00d wrote:

The only backup I can provide for anything, is my experience in OEC during beta6 when HG tags were introduced and when unregulated space was introduced.

Originally, with just civ tags and regulated space, OEC was a nonconsentual PvP squad. Actual wars with other squads were fought over OECs beacon policy :- basically, if non oct civilians took oct beacons we would rip them, or warn them then rip them, or something. Whatever. Other squads would periodically oppose this, by putting in a big show of force while overtly taking oct beacons and tuning them to non oct colors.

Wars were fought, civs were ripped, and many OEC and UZI ended up carrying very large bounties and, from the comms, I dont think any of the OEC PvP pilots (99% of OEC) had any problem with attacking civ targets that were known enemies, and either getting bounties, or worsening their PRs.

Pilots ran missions to improve their PRs, when pilots with low PRs needed equipment we organized convoys that included pilots with high PRs with the relevent factions, went to the station, fought enemies and arbs out to collect bounties along the way, and re-equipped our people. I was flying - possibly a raven at the time, and the squad seemed happy.

Then HG tags were introduced. Now OEC was a nonconsentual PvP squad, so, it was decided that the squad as a whole would fly with HG tags - the expectation was that it would be "the same" as flying civ - other pilots would remain honorable and not attack OEC pilots - even our traders carrying heavy cargo between didtant foreign stations would go HG. We would do this as a matter of policy, and a matter of honor simply to give our opposing squads the ability to "declare" war on us, by attacking us, and we would in turn expect the same from our honorable opponents.

War would be declared in a nonconsentual fashion - by suprise attacks on enemy ships - but that would be it then - we would be at war, and neither squad would be so dishonerable as to *ever* turn HG tags off.

This almost worked.

How HG is used is a cultrual issue - it works the same way money works - if enough people belive that honerable pilots fly HG always - even while matter farming, and enough peopel belive that they are honerable pilots then civ tags could ahve become redundant except for protecting newbies who want to remain outside of the honerable nature of nonconsentual squad war.

Then Nazgul came.

I dont know if theyre entirely to blame - If they hadnt come, and the HG but nonconsentual culture had stuck, I suspect that it possibly wouldnt have survived retail with lots of newbies. Even retail though, the vets would have had a chance to level fast, and set the culture up, and the newbies might just have slotted in, beliving that *this* is the way the universe worked.

But, Nazgul were vets, good pilots, and they could see that money was nothing but valueless paper and they wernt having any of that. All HG nixes were their target, and the US server quickly learnt that here was a situation not covered by honor. They could NOT fly HG all the time, even when solo because there was a squad that would incessantly attack them if they did. Because NazGul did not belive that HG did not imply consent to be attacked.

So, Honor Guard, as a mechanism to enable non conentual war without extreme civ rip penalties and/or griefing, was broken.

Once NazGul had shown the server that look - this crap you call money is just paper, what on earth were you thinking when you gave it value and used it to trade - they had shown the server that Honor Guard squads were a pie in the sky dream - a construct that would never work, and squads were forced to fly civ when weak, and reserve HG for when they were strong.

So now HG means consentual combat, and Civ means griefing, and the possibility for nonconsentual war has been all but totally eliminated.

What the beta PvP vets wanted - those in OEC that I flew with - was not Honor "I consent to random attack" Guard tags, but Honor "We the squad consent to declrations of war but by hell if you declare war on us be prepared to finish it" Guard tags.

So, if HG tags - and unreg space - is the domain of consentual PvP - THEN somehow squads that want to "declare war" on their enemies should be able to do so using civ tags, but the moment they do so, the penalties designed to prevent griefing - automatically bump them HG, give them a bounty, and make them a target of every player in the game, AND throw on huge insurance penalties. Meaning that pilots in squads that one is effectivly & supposedly at war with - can remove themselves as valid combat targets and enjoy a relative degree of safety by simply donning civ tags, confident that if their enemies attack and rip them, the enemy that does so is going to be in a whole bunch of poo way way bigger than the inconvinience of trying to requip a 2nd time.

Right then, getting back to ND's misconception and registry coding. Ignoring the advice from old veterans, it appeared that everything would have been peachy with the new HG tags, right? Nope. It got alot worse than imagined...it got really worse. (coincidentally the 1st and 2nd Cruentus Legio Wars kicked off right around this time.) As the flood of "carebears" fled the rampaging "griefers", and "vigilantes" fed on each other like thieves with no honor, NetDevil grew increasing desperate and as Beta6 went out with a whimper they coded unreg space and XP hits to the horror of the pvpers (since they were the only ones left...with a smattering of "elite/privateer" merchant princes used to this sort of chaos.) At that point squad combat vets just went OTT on the forums about their 'nonconsentual pvp' dying and the dishonorable vigilante culture emerging from the ashes...They were demoralized by NetDevil's dismissal of "self-defense" in this devchat right before XP/unreg were coded: http://jg.stratics.com/sections/jghoc/5-8-2001.shtml
The noise they used to make since beta6 has diminished at a steady pace. Today, there's no more talk of "self-defense", because there's a disconnect between the one's who deal with that issue 24/7 and those that don't. This conventional wisdom is reinforced by rules lawyers cum-civ vigilantes (ie. bounty hunter scum) and Quake-in-space HGs (the weekend warriors) who's become the champions of the new world order.

There. Now we're full circle. You have a silent group of 'nonconsentual pvpers' and a vocal group of 'consentual pvpers' (ie. the nonpvpers and pvpers alike who see the registry as just another anti-griefer rule)

For the 'NONconconsentual pvper', there's alot of resentment towards the registry, and they consider it a sham. I agree the registry system, in it's current form, is inadequate (and i'll avoid that topic in this thread), but saying that it's inclusion of the words "honor guard" created the problems we have currently is dead wrong. It's not the sin of the addition, but the sin of omission...That old "Self-Defense" bugbear that NetDevil crushed at that DevChat in may2001.

For the 'consentual pvper', "honor guard" and unreg space and the complex bounty rules create the illusion that "true pvpers" don't think vigilantism is that big a deal (i mean, if it was, we'd have self-defense rules for the negPR dudes, right?)

SYNOPSIS: CHAOS
Seeing the words "honor" and "guard" deceive most normal human beings into the misconception that this game was based on 'nonconsentual pvp'
Which is completely false (just look at that official recruiting poster at the very top of this thread)...Though it's certainly heading the opposite direction in the form Baadf00d illustrated above...Even NetDevil probably couldn't (and still can't) think about this fact very hard. I mean, they aren't experienced with pvp squad/faction warfare personally, are they? And they certainly don't have the time to read every post just in case some grizzled pvper posts an epiphany about 'nonconsentual pvp' and how bounties have evolved into an untenable "Tag-u-R-it" game of vigilantes through the combination of anti-griefer rules in play and the lack of self-defense rules that aren't.

SUGGESTION
Now, this whole thread/topic/theme isn't about how to reduce griefer activity, nor is it to do with Registry issues, this patently isn't the case; My goal has nothing to do whatsoever with the griefer or registry issue. For the former I believe the current protections are about as strong as they could be, and even a little draconian. (the only way to deal with griefers is for the GMs to spot them fast and ban them faster) . But, again, this thread is NOT about adding more punishments metted out by the current pvp rules, per se...As for the latter, Registry is a whole different topic.

My focus will be on one proposition only: The 'carrying' of a permanent bounty(negPR) needs a "self-defense" clause. Insofar as 'carrying' means to work off a bounty(negPR) successfully while defending oneself against "vigilantes".
By "self-defense" i mean that any pilot with a perm.bounty(negPR) [but not a temp.bounty] will not take a bounty/pr/xp hit for defending themselves. The wording is chosen extremely well, and should be read till one understands the import, especially the four words after "but". (if ND codes this, there doesn't need to be some kind of "flag" that shows the differences between temp and perm bounty because the negPR pilot has the "last aggressor button" and a civilian doesn't take any penalty whether the negPR dude has tempbounty or not)

IRC Chat wrote:

[03:57] <NytStryke> if someone has a -pr bounty, they're safe as long as they dont' fire first?
[03:58] <MF|mining> it's like unreg as long as the -pr pilot doesn't have temp.bounty prior to the act of self-defense.

As I understand it, you cannot acquire a bounty in unreg, but you can see bounties, and collect the bounties that you see.

There's a heck of a lot more reasons to gain a perm.bounty(negPR) than most people give credit for.
a civripper is not automatically a griefer.

n00bs like Bayonette getting themselves into an impossible situation

someone having to defend themselves against vigilantes cashing in on their friendly fire bounty, specifically dealing with the consequences (carrying the perm.bounty(negPR) alone)

someone having to defend selves against "bounty seeding", specifically dealing with the consequences (carrying the perm.bounty(negPR) alone)

An escort having to preemptively take down a pirate to protect his charge, specifically dealing with the consequences (carrying the perm.bounty(negPR) alone)

you're involved in a protracted squad war and you have the onerous honor of ganking the enemies logistics civ tow, specifically dealing with the consequences (carrying the perm.bounty(negPR) alone)

some punk cheated the broker and you splash him/her, specifically dealing with the consequences (carrying the perm.bounty(negPR) alone)

A pirate attempting to make a career around the draconian pvp rules while 'carrying' a perm.bounty(negPR) alone.

there's a few more like tow bumping and station strippers that might seem a joke, but really aren't at all.
by alone, i mean without a temp.bounty (alluding to my "but" clause in the "self-defense" ruling

I'd love to make it simpler by eliminating the "but" clause, but even proponents of "Occam's Razor" must realize the exploits inherent in NOT including that clause. (besides, this rule also isn't a 'time out' clause. you've got a perm.bounty(negPR) so you're not freakin getting a 'get out of jail' card.)

Here's some old counter-arguments:

SuckY wrote:

So what your saying is that self-defense can help with making the current system workable, especially the part about the attitude towards bountys. I agree with you there. What I don't agree with tho, is that its workable. You are just re-modeling the tag-your-it game into a more complex tag-your-it, and in the long run you might end up providing more "PvP"er tag-master and "non-PvP"er seperation. For one reason why its not workable is, take for example this :

1. NegPR dude meets 3 vigilantes. Vigilantes set up an attack (Neg PR dude can do nothing but run), and only when they all 3 start firing can he shoot back. Rewards the true lamas (for example dockingcampers).

2. 3 NegPR dudes meet 3 vigilantes, they procede to engage. 3 Vigs gank NegPR dude 1, he dies. They gank nr.2, he dies. Of course this basicly hurts Octavians most, but in the end you have to admit that a system of "automated justice" just isn't really possible.

now then, saying this won't do anything but complicate the "TAG-U-R-IT" game is flawed. actually is worse than flawed, it's deceptive in that you expect me to assume this is throught though tactically. Yes, there will be situations where vigilante gankfleets will attempt to "divide and conquer" squads of negPR pirates...that's called intelligent target planning...The flaw revolves around the "wingman concept" not being applied. (actually, if you do apply it, one realizes teamwork actually REINFORCES the "self-defense" code in favour of the defending -pr's team)

let me be quite explicit here: It doesn't eliminate the "TAG" game. That's patently not the case here. This "self-defense" isn't some UBER 'get out of jail free' card. (It conveys zero advantage to anyone)...what it does instead is change the entire concept of the "tag" game into something entirely different by eliminating the "kick'em when down"/"kill em all and let god sort em'" flaw.
EPILOGUE; WHAT IF
What if they actually code this "self-defense" rule (and perhaps it's attendent "temp.bounty" flag as a cosmetic bonus)?

This will encourage:

Pirating, for it will be possible to carry a bounty without the extremely persistent negPR albatross (they are criminals, but they are still TRI pilots - Even at -100pr);

Bounty-Hunting, for it will be finally HONORABLE to be a bounty-hunter (Civ or HG; ask yourself why noone prides themselves in this activity currently and in the past?);

Squad Warfare, for it will finally be possible to make tactical strikes on enemy tows and bounty-seeders without the cruel & unreasonably steep consequences involved in waging this kind of war. (ask yourself why bounty seeding/attacks on enemy logistics are considered extremly dishonourable)

Self-Defense will discourage:

Vigilantism, for it will no longer be glorified by the cowards who exploit the spiralling xphit/negPRhit of a defending perm.bounty pilot.

Bounty-seeding; see above point

Station-Stripping, for it will no longer be possible to GET to the station in question if you're a coward...they'll take you down in regulated and work off the negPR without worrying about cowardly reprisals by civ tags

LAST THOUGHTS
do please note that this doesn't give anyone who attacks perm.bounty only players a penalty (ie. bounty) themselves, so complaining that this self-defense rule allows griefers time to set up their attack is bunk. (it's gives NO advantage to anyone. Just takes away a disadvantage. period)...remember, the "bonus flag" denoting perm/temp difference really isn't that necessary. ('last aggressor' hotkey is just as effective) I added that just because i know EVERYONE would bitch there wasn't...no doubt, if this is coded, we'll have bitching about how griefing is much more common. which is total bollox since griefers don't give a rat's ass about rules, do they? Alas, there's always the whiners who will completely miss the point and say this gives "some" advantage to griefers. (yeah, right it's called the "kick'em when they down"/"kill em all and let God sort em'" diehards)

in order to think of this as giving an advantage would be the context of removing the "kick'em when they down" 'advantage'. WTF kind of 'advantage' are you coming from? the moral highground??!!? lol. Please, do try that one on me

Political status does not limit your ability to fight other players, it just forces pilots to think about what they are doing. In previous betas a reckless pilot could kill newbies and other players to their hearts content with no repercussions. Although this may not sound bad from the hunters perspective, think about the prey: if you were shot down every time you launched, would you play more than an hour before you gave up? How enjoyable would that be? While this option is still available to players, they must now deal with the fact that they have engaged in a criminal (or at least socially unacceptable) actions. Now, as you become more and more feared/hated buy a faction, the less they are going to want to help you by allowing you access to their technologies. This means that you will be limiting your ship somehow, since each faction produces superior items of a specific class.
For pirate squads this may present a logistical challange - who do you stop? Maybe pilots are broken into three groups, each being allowed to kill only one opposing faction. Maybe you'll need to use intermediary smugglers to bring equipment to you... pirating is not an easy thing. (As it should be. Pirating has always been an illegal action and not an easy life style.)

Jumpgate is still a PVP environment, but success no longer revolves around killing other players. A peaceful, productive manner of play is not only possible, but encouraged (yet not enforced).

JOSSH flight academy; honour guard
When you fly the Honor Guard flag you are announcing to the rest of space that you are prepared for combat, and are willing to do anything necessary to uphold and protect your ideals (whatever they may be).

I agree that the former half is true, but the latter has not been true for a VERY long time and never had a hope in hell of being anything other than "prepared for combat" because of the actual PvP coding since Feb2001(beta6; "'rerelease'), ipso facto.

This a posteriori reasoning is mine alone, of course, but rests upon the certainty that the current coding has encouraged "kick'em when they down"/"shootfirst & **** the questions" behavior, while inhibiting any attempt at "ideals"

MG general forum thread
The below is a transcript of when i get going in that EU debate thread on pvp. (i linked to it earlier in this thread)

Quote:

Originally posted by _Nellie
What could anyone "legitimately" do about -deleter- for example? Bounty hunting under Civ reg claiming temp accidental bounties [using the "Anti-TRI terrorist RP"

That is a very good point, isn't it? Naturally i've got a solution, but that would involve huge amounts of potential flame war bait if i didn't explain myself thoroughly. (luckily i've already made a PvP FAQ cum Wishlist) you can view that here. (This goes for Sirhic's 1st & 2nd points as well.)

Let me warn you that it's not a "get out of jail free" card. If yer bountied people can still claim it even if you haven't fired a shot after launching again. It doesn't give you the ability to buy stuff if you have a home polhit. sorry. (you'll just have to brave it, k?)

Besides, griefers like Rollio who gank anyone who doesn't want to fight and run from people who do should have been banned LOOOOOOONG ago. (and they take their fagg0ty "antiTRI BS PvP RP" and shove it where the sun don't shine

Quote:

Originally posted by SirHic
3) Civilian tags are being used to hide behind. Either we have a new "pirate" tag (or similar) or we look seriously at the current system. Currently, the Civ tag is a "get-out-of-gaol" free card! Mebbe it should not be an option for players with same-faction rips, or, say, five or more home rips.

5) hmm, it's not an easy subject at all, but the more I think about it, the more I believe that bounties should be visible to HG pilots only. Would certainly help point one, which would be a step in the right direction.

see above

see above

3rd point. I used to think that civs shouldn't PvP no matter what. period. I believed that very strongly for years. It's a crock of shiite though, because what you are doing is FORCING people who dont' want to play the game your way to change their legitimate-nongriefing GAMEPLAY. now between you and me, i changed my mind because i was hurting nongriefing nonpvpers who roleplay civilian truckers more than i was helping to protect against griefers.

4th point. see point three.

5th point. sounds interesting. HG only ones who see bounty? if you're not LOOKING for exploits it sounds 100% peachy. unfortunately, it's a hop skip and a jump from pirates running around bountied to hell and civilian PoD victims at risk of gaining a bounty for defending themselves. (NOT GOOD)

Quote:

originally posted by Zeshin:
Let the civ turn to HG if he lands a shot on another pilot. Although, he should remain civ if he fires back on someone hitting him

sounds interesting. uhmmm...like Sirhic's previous suggestion it's a dead horse well flogged. (correct answer: warparty tagged civ. flies into rally point/staging area in unreg (THINK POS) territory to meet up with a HG teammate who already docked and is awaiting the command so that everyone else can shoot him to get HG (and it's neutral/unreg so no bounty)

and the "recent" change to pvp means that a negPR pilot is already HG, so staging/rallying in enemy regulated territory is yet another possible exploit under your suggestion

Wyx yer losing yer touch, babe.

Quote:

originally posted by Tainted:
Pirates that dont even ask for a POD, just jump into a sector and kill everything that moves.

uhhhhhhh..."pirates"? sorry, you mean in the sense of 'privateers' versus 'pirates'? (as in 'privateers' being the PoD who RP effectively and 'pirates' as in griefers?)

yes. civrippers suck. seriously. running around with max negPR killing civs is about the griefiest thing i've ever heard/seen. Too bad MG/ND doesn't ban fast enough. (ie. Rollio-wannabes) But, what yer doing is throwing out the baby with the bathwater with your suggestions in this thread. (plus you really need to chill. yer starting to use 'troll' techniques like counter-counter semantic clarification (CCSC))

IF civilian attacks -pr
AND location reg space
AND target has no temp bounty
THEN "self-defense" engaged for that specific pilot

BaadF00d wrote:

Which means that the civ - that fired first - now has the agressor flag set - allowing self defense of the -pr...I dont belive that its practical or desirable for the server to try to maintain a "self defense" for every concievable combination of civ pilot -pr pilot pairs.

I had told BaadF00d to post that PM openly, but he was too polite to do such grave damage to a hopeful solution...who knows? maybe Baad's wrong and my suggestion wouldn't put stress on the server? we can always hope ND comments on this.

Last edited by MajorFreak on Mon Dec 09, 2002 6:32 pm; edited 1 time in total

The issue really - for the server to maintain a single "simple" aggressor flag for a pilot - requires a single DB entry for each pilot. Storage for the flag ~ n

To store pilot / pilot agression, the server needs to essentially store a record for each pilot relative to each other pilot. Storage requirements are now n˛. Even if you made the storage "smart" and to not store per pilot agression settings if the setting was zero - theres no way to control the risk that a significant number of pilots will get together and get per pilot agressor flags set - potentially causing the server to run out of memory and ... crash or slow down a lot

Crossreference to MG forum
okay, so keeping track of individual aggressor flags is a no go. That leaves us with one alternative: Permanent bountied (only) pilots cannot be attacked by civilians without incurring bounty penalties themselves. In order to make this work ND must code a new "bounty flag" (illustration) that distinguishes a temp.bounty -- make it LOADS more visible than the current default icon we have now to show both bounties.

What is the difference between my earlier suggestion? The new suggestion would disable "preemptive strikes" by civilian transports (and/or escorts) waylaid by "PoD" pilot(s) Is this enough to outweigh the benefits from 'Self-Defense'? Yes. why? Look at the larger picture and the literally scores of problems 'Self-Defense' for perm.bounty (only) pilots who've chosen to uphold their *IC* principles and taken a hit for reasons everyone of us would agree with, except the Llama vigilantes of course -- It would be an even greater limitation on Bounty Hunters since this would restrict vigilantes to the complex act of "bounty seeding" alone (and even then, this would assuage the consequences of civripping vigilantes after your seeded bounty)

Combined with BaadF00d's Demerit system and we've got a revamped system that just might put the 'Honour' back into HG.

Regardless of prior bounty penalties or registry, Pilot A now has negPR, HG status and two types of bounty (temp for shooting said pilot and perm for ganking said pilot)

If pilot A had prior negPR of -50 or below in said victim's faction pilot A would also suffer XP loss accordingly

the temp bounty can be cleared at dock (a temp bounty disables "self-defense")

the negPR bounty, as per standard rules, needs to be worked off without the aid of "decay" (there were alot of requests to eliminate PR decay along with the "self-defense" concept)

having docked, Pilot A is protected by "self-defense" until such time as Pilot A fires upon an unbountied civ pilot in reg. space (thus gaining a temp bounty as well and disabling "self-defense"

now, here's one of the crucial bits: There must be a distinction between the perm.bounty icon and the temp.bounty icon (temp taking precedence over perm. icon)

the other crucial bit is if any civilian in reg. space triggers "self-defense" the civilian will take a temp.bounty -- If the civilian 'vigilante/police/bountyhunter/escort/whatever' manages to gank pilot A they do not suffer no other penalty than the temp.bounty

now. there are a few "exploits" people will immediately gravitate to. The major one being that this will still allow gank fleets to rape pilots (sorry, this ain't some get out of jail free card. "self-defense" isn't some WINGAME button for morons)...The other major one is that if a vigilante (pilot C) gains a "temp" bounty by triggering "self-defense" by attacking a perm.bounty iconed pilot in reg. space (Pilot A) an unbountied civ wingman (Pilot B) of Pilot A can attack the bountied civ (Pilot C) knowing that if the bountied civ attacks and downs pilot B that pilot C suffers negPR and all the other nasty perm.bounty stuff....Not to mention one could always bounty seed Pilot A. (that's another popular "exploit" used to counter my proposal)...There's another route naysayers can take, and that's the assumption that 'QuakeInSpacers' will continue to treat HG tags as targets of opportunity (negPR pilots are HG anyways, so they assume it's a moot point)...Course, there's the oft favorite pirate exploit that Pilot A can waylay convoys and escorts without fear of a first strike by civilian victim/escorts.

Sure you could abuse the civilian tag to either bounty seed or take advantage of another civilian triggering "self-defense" clause of a perm.bounty icon pilot...sure you could abuse the "self-defense" clause by avoiding temp.bounties while having negPR and waylay civilian convoys/escorts. But this occurs anyways. people who exploit this already know how to get around the current rules.

There is a subtle change tho. A change in the coding that says some negPR pilots are not scum of the earth. A change in attitude towards nonconsentual pvp will occur in all playstyles (even the nonpvpers and consentual pvpers)

when one cannot help but honour nonconsentual pvp as a potentially viable playstyle it follows that target discrimination can no longer be seen in black&white. Not only that, but one's treatment of HG vs HG combat potential can no longer be seen so simplistically either. (if one begins to respect a playstyle other than one's own, one's appreciation for one's OWN playstyle is heightened)...finally, the nonpvp playstyle will also be more easily respected, especially since vigilantism no longer would blur the civilian registry tag's meaning. (sure it would happen, but it would no longer be the indiscriminate opportunism that so pervades our community)

Quote:

The is honour among thieves

indiscriminate opportunism has been accepted by the community (and netdevil/mightgames too) as the connotation of Honour. Consentual pvp stripped of appreciation for other playstyles becomes indiscriminate and opportunistic. if you doubt me simply look to GMSilk's post about how MightyGames sees "Self-Policing" to mean. can there be any doubt? (linkage)

Hrmmm. I'm not a big bounty junkie, but I've taken one for team... or a few... Critique, eh...
Muffy comment: redundancies! must delete redundancies! U R QUOTE LIKE MANIAC

n/a - it's simple =)

Correct. The temp is in place until dock, and you're fair game for all 3 factions, and the perm to the faction of the pilot you just killed.

Prolly. As an Opti with well over 15m xp, I wouldn't even begin to notice. Can't help ya there =)

Yeah. When you're temped, anyone can kill you, and you get a perm for successfully defending yourself. Yay.

Figures they'd pick the one that was another negative...
You can still decay down to -15, though. Mine decayed that far just by normal playtime - took a month of waiting though. I didn't bother trrying to work it off. That's 33 missions, and I have better things to do. (not to mention the next 33 I'll have to do to get back to +100, where I was before.

Self-explanatory, yeah.

That's true, but exploitable. Why bother giving them a bounty if they don't have an incentive to get rid of it? (Not counting uber-NAPers... =) I dunno, Tough one. I'm referring to the "give the civ bounty hunters a temp" - why punish them for game mechanics?

Hrmm. So... are you saying the escort defending his tow from a -PR fighter should be penalized for defending his tow? I don't get that. Maybe I'm reading it wrong.

Quote:

now. there are a few "exploits" people will immediately gravitate to.

Convoluted, but I get it.. I think. The bounty system can get truly Machiavellian. Gank fleets should be able to chase a bountied pilot. Rarely do you get one unless a lot of people feel he deserve it. *shrug* The wingman one would kill that proposal - and it would be used often. It already is in station battles. Bounty seeding... bleh. Though I have done it accidentally once or twice - haven't complained much either, due to who the pilot was. *shrug*

Quote:

There's another route naysayers can take

Yes, they will =) They always will. You get better killstats that way...When the only thing between you and vigilante justice is your squad diplomatics - and seldom do they matter for PvP pilots - you're up shit creek 3/4 of the time.

Quote:

Course, there's the oft favorite pirate exploit...

Yep. If they don't care about -PR, then they have the advantage, first off. If I got a target that needs to go down, I didn't bother checking tags. They went down. That's the "HG mentality" at work, not the bounty system, imo. The harsher penalties just enforce the reasoning that "only HG pilots can fight". The posts about "OMG YOU ATTACKED ME IN UNREG AND RAN TO REG" are unreal. "That is so lame!" Why, because you don't have the balls to take a bounty? Yeah, you got screwed, but they got dead. Oh well. If they don't have the balls themselves, screw em. As you can see... I'm not as carebear as believed elsewhere =P

Anything's going to be abused, imo. How much, and by whom, is the question. This solution helps the real villians as much as the justified civ-rippers, and hinders the "policee squads" as much as it hinders the "opportunists with questionable ethics".
If you ask me, as nice as it would be for a justified civ ripper, it adds even more complexity to the already cumbersome bounty system. Granted, I had NAPs to protect me, but even so, if I ripped someone I thought deserved it, I'd rather take my licks than have to puzzle through even more rules =( It's a symptom of a bigger problem: The battle between ND's black and white view of "good and bad" - which doesn't remotely resemble what actually goes on. As an accused carebear (which I assure you, I'm not), I'm going to say something surprising. (Probably not, to you.) I don't want tags at all. I want my chosen role to determine who shoots at me, or not. I'm tired of seeing "OMG, New Dawn HG????" -I don't get shot at, but the "rep", or "stigma" of the carebear vs. 1337PvP0r argument tarnishes more and more.

I flew with double bounties for a month, simply because I wanted to see if my RP held up. It did. But will it for other less-militant squads? I seriously, seriously doubt it. We have a very very well-established reputation for being non-PvP, and non-agressive - when we do something other than that, we say why, and against who. But not everyone is in that boat. There's not too many who would care if my tags didn't say "New Dawn".

Quote:

There is a subtle change tho.

The added complexity to the system would only make it more the domain of the "in-crowd" and less the domain of "joe pilot". The fact of the matter is, HG tags aren't going anywhere. Bounty rules aren't going anywhere. Adding a deeper labyrinth, no matter how well-intentioned, I feel will just make things worse.

If "bounty hunting" as well as "pirating" were added as separate registries, I'd be more willing to agree. I know, I'm countering my own argument above, in a way, but having them all have separate characteristics would blur the lines *less*, I feel.

Example:
HG - Change the tag to say "Military" (paramilitary, really) - today's HG
Civilian - not willing to be involved in military activity - *but still able to be shot down - albeit with a penalty - if they deserve it, they deserve it. Or if they don't =)* MAY NOT collect bounties. They have to have the Military of HG tags. The catch: if they are SHOT - temp bounties apply.
new HG tag- May engage pirates, or bountied pilots with no negative ramifications - otherwise, civilians - *except to pirates or bountied pilots*
CANNOT engage HG. However, they may still collect bounties.
Pirate - may engage Military, or HG with no penalty. CANNOT collect a bounty. Why would TRI pay to them, anyway?

Pluses: Bounty hunters and pirates/bountied pilots can go at it, and stick in their respective RPs. Civs stay completely the hell out of bounty hunting.Pirates can be pirates.
Minuses: Another civ pilot cannot immediately collect a bounty on someone else if *they* are not fired on - escorts should fly as *bounty hunters* - BUT - this also makes them fair game for the pirate... good/bad? hrmm...More complex Yet MORE tags we didn't want in the first place...Puts HG tows being pirated on a bad footing - but they were there to begin with. There's probably more to both. Whatcha think of the ideas though? I would say "discuss", but most likely, knowing you, it'll be "dissect" =)

the risk is what any 303 bounty pilot must deal with. Come on, yer either a fucking vigilante not a registered police officer [HG], or an unlicensed CIV convoy escort who shot first, grow some balls! (if you're a trader who shot first instead of pedalling, i'll just say to read on with some patience...)

the reward for the negPR(no temp) is they can work off a perm.bounty without being some wizard at it like Rollio (and the other expert pirates who laff at how efficient it is to clear negPR)...remember, the people who need "self-defense" the most are those that are most unfamiliar with negPR in the first place. remember that i've asked for insurance to be valid for pilots killed while "self-defense" was enabled (not sure if that's possible code wise though.)...this allows people who'd otherwise be luncheon meat to the REAL criminals if they'd tried to shoot first with the CURRENT risks of clearing negPR.

the reward for roleplayers successfully playing negPR criminals is immense: carrying bounties...who would have thought one could actually roleplay a negPR criminal. Carrying a bounty would probably be worth it if insurance for "self-defense" was possible and negPR decay was eliminated...it's hard enough having fun while being a pirate and it's a huge money sink regardless if "self-defense" was coded.

And please note this would allow people to escort folks working off perm.bounties without taking bounties for downing vigilantes. (though if yer stupid enough to escort as a civ and some HG goes after your charge, then you need a lobotomy)

the reward for bountyhunters is the elimination of the coward stigma, and the ability to actually take down a target doesn't have that "oh, you probably were a stinking vigilante punk" prejudice that's the milk and butter of squad hissyfits.

the reward for HG escorts is that downing a civ tagged pirate isn't a major blow. see my first point above for Civ escorts

And if an HG escort shot a "self-defense" covered criminal? uh huh. let me remind the class how much i'm going to flame you if grade 3 math is too much for you. (hint: HG vs HG. duh)

the best argument against "self-defense" is that people say escorts/traders couldn't engage negPR pirates. But just look at the bullshit scenario and tell me how many situations are you going to have that a negPR pirate is going to try for an (un)escorted convoy in regulated space CURRENTLY!? (though, if that IS the case, one has to worry about ratios of pirates to non-pirates on a server dying of hemmoraging...at that point, "self-defense" would be rather moot)

that "self-defense" will encourage pirates to PoD in regulated space brings up the issue of /give and the need to eliminate it, but that's offtopic and i'll only say that PoD will most likely shift to on-station "transactions"

what i'm SAYING is that CURRENTLY escorts (or traders defending themselves) can't down a criminal in a first strike if either is civilian without incurring the slippering slope of negPR - which you're going to be damn sure that pirate and his buddies are going to make sure the ex-escort/trader feels the pain every step to clearing the perm.bounty. and THAT'S where my "self-defense" encourages escorts/traders to shoot first and screw the questions (and shoot second and hopefully clear that perm.bounty later)

Real pirates, and terrorists are way too efficient at clearing negPR. To think that this will encourage more "piracy" exploits is ludicruous when one realizes that Real pirates will only carry a perm.bounty if it suited their roleplay. seriously. you doubt me? see here. (BTW, the "viability" issue of a pirate "career" is monumentally retarded)

the problem with the stupid economy is irrelevant. Saying that the bloated finances will encourage griefing to explode after "selfdefense" is coded is hilarious. i'm not even going to try explaining the stupidity of this red herring.

the BIG DEAL, for everyone (including n00bs) is that JG's PvP rules aren't a sad joke anymore...(ESPECIALLY for n00bs because they see a pirate who downed them recently and try for revenge WITHOUT becoming fodder while attempting to repair a negPR account.) - They'll be fodder, but if they can actually defend themselves without dying at least they won't be further in the hole with negPR...but this sort of case brings samaritans running with the knowledge the helping someone work off a bounty won't mean taking a bounty oneself. And besides, any pirate worth his/her salt is going to be impressed with a potential recruit...the important bit, and i must stress this, is that the n00b will not feel taken advantage of by the game code more than taken advantage of a wily pirate who cleared their bounty earlier. (this even encourages pirates NOT to clear their bounty, and for n00bs to learn about "self-defense") it's not the learning or ignorance that pisses n00bs off, it's the damn game code being so CURRENTLY biased towards exploitation of bounties.

the argument that this suggestion bundle violates Occam's Razor ignores the fact that the CURRENT PvP rules are walking around with crutches and you're either going to have to amputate and get prosthetics ('inhibitor chip') eventually, or heal the damn patient's natural limbs. come on, get a grip, there's no way in hell anyone can tell me i'm making the pvp rules too complex when my suggestion makes it LESS convoluted. So you gotta worry about triggering "self-defense". boo freaking hooo. so you got a 303 bounty for blowing away a negPR pilot who hasn't shot first...i'm sure if you did that currently you'd be considered REAL brave, huh? like that civvie dress, bitch?

An honour guard warrior being "bounty seeded" by some chump civvie during a battle? Now you can work off that perm.bounty with HG escorts who'll never worry about taking bounties unless someone "seeds" them...and how many vigilantes would exist then? none...bounty seeding would become just another tactic and not something debilitating.

and for those who walk around with balls of steel and patronize me that YOUR squad has the biggest ones of all and doesn't need pansy assed "self-defense" to clear YOUR bounties when dealing with scum, i'd like to politely point out you're irrelevant to this topic because yer in the minority. (like, you know, loud boasters with small dicks. go play in your squad hissyfit sandboxes)

As for RazorKiss concluding that when i said "subtle" i meant "more complex" i'd like to point out that the current system is so lethal to ones that don't know it that the solution i've outlined would make the bounty system INTUITIVE.

Razor; i fail to even grasp the use of saying escorts/traders would be "penalized"...in the CURRENT system they're fucked. seriously ass raped, buddy. The objection that this would allow negPR self-defense fighters to get into position to take the first lethal shots is a "little" out of context when the entire POINT of "self-defense" allows folks to take that perm.bounty penalty themselves without worrying about the current slippery slope that entails. It would allow that same civ escort/trader to down even a non-bountied Civ or HG pilot with the same lack of worry about the slippery slope of negPR....besides, how many pirates do you know who currently can't clear their perm.bounty efficiently? not bloody many i'll bet.

the coding is simple. the byproducts would be one would need (or not) an extra bounty flag icon for the HUD display to warn of pilots with a perm.bounty only and not a temp.bounty (with or without a perm.)

personally, i'd go without a new bounty icon because JumpGate should promote the mystery and intrigue - it entails REAL RISK. Just like onekill traps should give pirates concern about EVERY prospective trader...i'd harp about the need to remove /give but that's offtopic

there's also the point that someone brought up to eliminate negPR decay.

Because it gradually takes away from individual player freedom to affect another's game. A MMORPG should not be played in such a wy that you are able to totally ignore other players, because there's never any risk or danger. Sadly, we are headed that way.

sadly, the "anarchy" crowd can't see past their own navel, so 'inhibitor chips' are inevitable at this point...Once MightyGames realizes their 'no pod in reg' = more customers = happier customers and adds zero up they'll discover that profit > pvp niche market (ie. "wild west")

ironic how the most extreme pvpers (pirates) whine about how oneshotkillTraps are bad and how /give is good and how burglar should be cooler than sliced bread...funny how the hardcore pvpers (who aren't pirates) yell long and hard about pvp and forget most MMOG folk don't give too hoots

it's sad because the PvP game engine coding we've had since HG got coded in beta6 (practically unchanged since "beta7"/eu release) has so much potential to BE self-policing capable - if "self-defense" was coded. *shrug* ah well, it's useless since i've got a bloody Cassandra complex. noone believes "making jg more complex" will "fix the game", because it's too easy to spout that line of BS to shoot any idea down. An idea, i might add, which is aimed at challenging the totally crapass "vigilante" culture we have. isn't that fixing the game? isn't that reducing the idiotic complexity of "tag yer it" perm.bounties? *sigh* goddamned hopeless, isn't it? bunch of wanking fucktards shoot down any idea that isn't a one liner joke for their incestuous squad orgies. (ie. "grab a gun, some mates, and shoot back or fuck off out of OUR game")

I took a bounty recently (consentual rip), and I lost I think 7 million to it. That was only a -21, iirc. Admittedly, I was working it off in prime time. Self (by this I mean player regulation, rather than individual pilots controlling themselves) regulation _can_ work. It's working with a group of pilots on US as I speak. The problem, of course, is that sometimes things get beyond the bounds of self regulation (for example, the pirate problem earlier this year). That is when the GMs need to step in, not on a constant basis. This is where US falls down - the GMs don't even step in under extreme circumstances. By the same token, the ROC on EU is practically suffocating. Happy medium, anyone?